[open-science] Possibly interesting for this list: see item 3 in particular
pm286 at cam.ac.uk
Tue Oct 21 22:17:06 UTC 2014
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 11:05 PM, William Gunn <william.gunn at gmail.com>
> Puneet, it's a large organization. There are some people who get it and
> really want to do the right things and there are some people who are less
> progressive. The important point is that in a large organization like this,
> not everyone is perfectly in agreement about how we should engage, yet
> active teams have to have a large amount of autonomy and self-direction if
> they want to be efficient. The combination of these two factors means that
> you will occasionally see certain things come out that seem more
> progressive and occasionally things will happen that seem like a step back.
> The people involved in this effort are of the first type. Perhaps the best
> response is to celebrate the wins and regret the failures, rather than
> letting the worst things tarnish the good.
This is nothing to do with Open Science.
> Peter, at this stage, we're just soliciting feedback on ideas, but please
> know your concerns are shared by the team.
There is a Research Black Hole in Text And Data Mining at Elsevier. They
have been lobbying and throwing money to stop this research activity except
on their terms. Last Month Gemma Hersh from Elsevier stated repeatedly in
public that Elsevier could ignore the new UK legislation and stop me doing
research. She is legally wrong.
Elsevier has consistently lobbied against Open Access (PRISM, SOPA, etc,)
and has done a great deal to prevent the spread of Open Knowledge. Half my
research effort has been destroyed by having to spend time on challenging
I shall not post on this issue again
> William Gunn | 6506141749 | @mrgunn
> On Oct 21, 2014 2:49 PM, "Mr. Puneet Kishor" <punk.kish at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Yeah, to kinda echo PMR, I don't really get Elsevier. They continue to do
>> dick-y things and, as a result, continue to be everyone's favorite whipping
>> boy, but they also continue to participate in the open community. I mean,
>> not that anyone should be excluded, but what is their deal? For example, in
>> the TDM area, they have concurrently created hurdles and tried to solve
>> them ham-handedly. If someone has insights into Elsevier's motives and
>> strategy, please explain.
>> Puneet Kishor
>> On Oct 22, 2014, at 3:14 AM, Peter Murray-Rust <pm286 at cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>> Is all the data in this challenge Open by the Open Definition? (CC-BY/CC0)
>> Is all the software OSI-compliant?
>> Are all the entries fully Open?
>> Are all the results fully Open?
>> Is the process of judging Open?
>> If not, I would doubt this is appropriate for an Open list. There sees to
>> be no benefit for the Open community and no promotion of the Open ideal.
>> On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 8:11 PM, William Gunn <william.gunn at gmail.com>
>>> Elsevier are doing a Grand Challenges in Research Data competition.
>>> Here's how they describe it:
>>> "The goal is to pick one or more open problems and, then, invite
>>> research and industry teams out of there to compete and provide solutions
>>> that improve a given baseline. Those kind of competitions are common in the
>>> industry (e.g. Netflix <http://www.netflixprize.com/>) and are not new
>>> to Elsevier <http://www.elseviergrandchallenge.com/> either."
>>> Vote for the problem you'd like to see focus on here:
>>> William Gunn
>>> +1 (650) 614-1749
>>> open-science mailing list
>>> open-science at lists.okfn.org
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-science
>> Peter Murray-Rust
>> Reader in Molecular Informatics
>> Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
>> University of Cambridge
>> CB2 1EW, UK
>> open-science mailing list
>> open-science at lists.okfn.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-science
Reader in Molecular Informatics
Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
University of Cambridge
CB2 1EW, UK
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the open-science